vol. 30, no. 5

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXX

SAN FRANCISCO, MAY, 1965

Army and Private Business

curity Cases

Favorable decisions were handed down in three security

cases last month. Two of the cases involved Army veterans

while the third case involved the application of the Federal

industrial employment security program to a private em-

ployee. All three cases were resolved only after lengthy

' hearings and, in one instance,

the filing of a suit.

Inactive Reservist

The first case started in March

of 1964 at which time security

charges were filed by the Army

against an inactive reservist who

had received an honorable sepa-

ration after two years of active

duty in the Army which ended in

November 1960. He was sched-

uled to receive a final discharge

from the Army in November,

1964, after four years of service

in the inactive reserves.

_ Instead, he received security

charges which alleged that 1.

"Between 5 January 1961 and 27

September 1962, you maintained

a close continuing and sympa-

thetic association with the Young

Socialist Alliance"; and, 2. That

"On 12 June 1962 you became an

active member of the Socialist

Workers

numerous party meetings from

that date to 24 September 1963."

Secret File

At the hearing, in which he

was represented by Ernest Be-

sig, the Army relied upon a

secret file that was introduced

into evidence over the objections

of counsel, who was not allowed

to examine it. At the outset the

panel of three officers admitted .

that they had reveiwed the

secret file in preparation for the

hearing. A motion to disqualify

the panel was denied. There-

after, the board recommended

that the reservist be discharged

on security grounds. The ACLU

filed an appeal arguing, among

other things, that the Army had

lost jurisdiction of the case be-

cause the man's legal discharge

date had passed. On March 31,

1965, he suddenly received an

Honorable Discharge dated No-

vember 12, 1964.

Second Case

The second case involves a

senior engineering student at the

University of California who had

belonged to the Chinese Ameri-

`ean Youth Club. The Immigra-

tion Service apparently believes

that the group, which is now dis-

banded, is not politically pure

and consequently has harassed

its members. .-

In this particular case, nine

days before his normal discharge

date from the Army about two

years ago, the draftee was dis-

Party and attended

charged and handed a General

Discharge under honorable con-

ditions. Such a discharge lacks

the dignity of an Honorable Dis-

charge. The excuse for this ac-

tion was that the man had en-

tered the country. fraudulently.

On the other hand, his service in

the Army was excellent. It can

only be assumed that the dis-

charge was at the instigation of

the Immigration Service.

Suit Filed:

When the problem got beyond

`the local level, attorney Mark A.

Weiss of the Washington, D.C.,

Area, branch of the ACLU

handled the appeal. After ad-

ministrative relief was exhaust-

-Continued on Page 4

Contra Costa

Commitment

Challenged

Another facet of the problem

of alcoholism is raised. by an

ACLU suit filed last month, with

the cooperation of volunteer at-

torney Ruth Rathke. This suit

`challenges the right of Contra

Costa authorities to detain a per-

son who is civilly committed as

an alcoholic in a jail facility for

the confinement of persons who

have been convicted of. criminal

offenses. Contra Costa resident

Archie Halverson was not con-

victed of a crime, but was found

in need of treatment for the

disease of alcoholism. However,

instead of. providing treatment

for Halverson, the county put

him in the jail farm where he is

treated exactly the same as all

other prisoners, most of whom

have been convicted of crimes.

Besides objecting to the place

of his confinement, ACLU attor-

neys also point out that Halver-

son receives no medical treat-

ment whatsoever at the jail farm.

In a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus, which will be heard in

the Superior Court in May,

ACLU attorneys state that if the

government wishes to confine a

`person for a medical problem it

has the obligation to give that

person treatment for the medical

problem or else the confinement

exceeds the power of the govern-

ment and results in cruel and un-

usual punishment.

Belmont-Redwood City-San Carlos

Area Meeting, May 14 |

A local committee organized by Messrs. Charles

Ewing, John Eige and Leo Nelson has scheduled a meet- |

ing for the benefit of current and prospective members

in Belmont, Redwood City and San Carlos. Ernest Besig,

Executive Director of ACLUNC will speak on "Your

Privacy and the Bill of Rights." The meeting will begin

at 7:30 in the evening and will take place im the audi-

torium of the John F. Kennedy School, Goodwin and

Connecticut Avenue, Redwood City, on Friday, May 14.

Number 5

jembership

Stands Aft

Record 6275

As we go to press, the paid-up

membership of the ACLU of

Northern California has reached

a record high of 6275 or 255 be-

yond the previous record of

6020 attained last October 31.

At this same time last year,

there were only 5469 paid-up

members, so there has been an

increase of 806 over a year ago.

Also, there are 182 separate

subscribers to the "News" com-

pared with 162 a year ago.

The membership growth

comes about largely in response

to various mailings made by the

office in the current member-

ship drive with names supplied

by our members, as well as yeo-

man work in the non-chapter

areas. At this point, none of the

eight chapters have started on

their follow-up campaigns.

Credit for the membership

growth and the successful drive

goes to Mrs. Pamela Ford, our

part-time able Membership Di-

rector, the members who sup-

plied the names of more than

three thousand "prospects," and

the numerous volunteers in the

office and in the non-chapter

areas who have put in a fantas-

tic amount of time. The chances

are good that before the end of

the fiscal year on October 31,

the membership will stand at

well over 6500.

Girlie Magazines

The case of United States vs. 18 Packages of Magazines

came to a sudden hait last month when the United States an-

nounced that it was dismissing the appeal which it had filed

to the United States Supreme Court from an adverse decision

of Federal District Judge Stanley Weigel. Judge Weigel

had ruled that the Government

must turn over to importer Dr.

Earl Sass about 2,000 "girlie"

magazines which had been seized

on the ground that they were

obscene because the statute

under which they were seized

(19 U.S.C. 1305) did not provide

for a hearing before the seizure.

Not only did the Government

abandon its appeal and agree to

turn over the magazines to Dr.

Sass, but the United States At-

torney wrote to ACLU staff

counsel Marshall Krause indicat-

ing that the Collector of Customs

is being advised to release all

other books and magazines which

~ he may be holding on grounds of

obscenity. 5

Rotten Apple Theory

In earlier proceedings Federal

Judge William T. Sweigert had

released 10,000 of the magazines

to Dr. Sass on the basis that the

Government had not charged

that they were obscene and

could not hold the magazines

merely because they were found

in packages containing other

magazines which the Govern-

ment did allege were obscene.

This decision resulted in the end

of the "rotten apple" theory in

the administraton of the censor-

State Supreme Court Will

Hear ACLU Prop. 14 Case

As of this writing, the California Supreme Court has of-

ficially accepted jurisdiction in two cases objecting to the ap-

plication of Proposition 14 (now Article I, Section 26 of the

`California Constitution) on the basis that it is invalid under

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu-

tion. It may be recalled that'

Proposition 14 was an initiative

measure adopted by a vote of

2-1 forbidding the State govern-

ment and governmental subdivi-

sions from denying the "right"

of any person to sell or rent real

property to "such person or per-

sons as he in his absolute discre-

tion chooses." The effect of this

initiative amendment was to

nullify existing anti-discrimina-

tion in housing laws and to pre-

vent the State in the future from

passing further anti-discrimina-

ton in housing laws, without an

additional constitutional amend-

ment.

ACLU Case

The two cases which the Su-

preme Court has indicated it will

hear are Thomas vs. Goulis and

Grogan v. Meyer. Both of these

cases involve alleged discrimina-

tion in the renting of an apart-

ment to a Negro plaintiff. The

alleged acts of discrimination oc-

curred before the adoption of

Proposition 14. The attorney for

the plaintiff in Grogan vs. Meyer

is ACLU staff counsel Marshall

W. Krause and the plaintiff in

the Thomas case is represented

by private counsel. Both of these

cases started out in the San

Francisco Municipal Court where

a panel of three judges granted

a defense motion to dismiss on

the basis that Proposition 14 had

nullified the causes of action.

The three-judge panel said that

they had grave doubts about the

validity of Proposition 14, but

wished the question to be passed

upon by higher courts. An ap-

peal was taken but transfer to

the District Court of Appeal was

refused. Thereupon the appeals

were decided by the Appellate

Department of the Superior

Court, affirming the judgment of

the Municipal Court. Then the

District Court of Appeal did take

jurisdiction and transferred the

-eases to itself. On the day after

the cases were transferred to the

District Court of Appeal the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court, on its own

initiative, ordered that the cases

be transferred to its court, where

they are now pending.

Fresno Case

Last month another important

case was filed regarding the

validity of Proposition 14. This

is a direct action filed in the

Supreme Court of California ask-

ing for a Writ of Mandate on

behalf of a Fresno redevelop-

ment agency whose chairman re-

fuses to sign a nondiscriminatory

pledge in the contract (as re-

quired by federal law) because

he feels that he cannot guarantee

nondiscrimination because of the

existence of Proposition 14. The

Supreme Court will most likely

keep this case because it pro-

vides a convenient vehicle for

the testing of the reach and

validity of Proposition 14. Other

eases will be brought to the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court on appeal

from superior courts in Sacra-

mento and Los Angeles. All in-

dications are that the California

Supreme Court will decide the

significant question of the valid-

ity of Proposition 14 sometime in

the late summer after all pend-

ing cases have been argued.

ship provisions of the Cus`oms'

laws.

Up in the Air

The dismissal of the Govern-

ment's appeal in the remaining

portion of the case leaves the

matter of continuing enforce-

ment of obscenity laws by the

Federal government very much

up in the air. The statute allow-

ing the Post Office to declare

obscene items "non-mailable" is

of doubtful validity after the de-

cison of the United States Su-

preme Court in Manual Enter-

prises vs. Day. In that case, some

of the Justices were of the opin-

ion that the statute was unconsti-

- tutional, while others did not

reach the constitutional issue but

merely decided that Congress

had never authorized the Post

Office to seize allegedly obscene

material. Now the importation

section, Section 1305, will prob-

ably not be enforced because of

Judge Weigel's decision that it is

unconstitutional since it does not

provide for a due process hear-

ing to protect First, Fourth and

Fifth Amendment rights. How-

ever, the Government's dismissal

of the appeal prevents a defini-

tive ruling on this question since

Judge Weigel's decision is tech-

nically effective only in the

Northern District of. California.

Remaining Federal Law

This leaves on the books only

the Federal statutes punishing

as a crime the mailing of obscene

articles. It is likely that the Post

Office and the Customs Bureau'

will go to Congress to attempt

to get new legislation so that

they can continue their past

practice of censorship by ad-

ministrative action. The Ameri-

can Civil Liberties Union has

long held to the position that the

people of the United States

should decide for themselves.

what they are to read, and do

not need Government protection _

from reading material. Until

recent years, Section 1305 had

damaging effects on our culture

since it prevented the importa-

tion of books such as Henry Mil-

ler's "Tropic of Cancer" and

"Tropic of Capricorn," many of

the works of Jean Genet, and

other authors of note. However,

since these books have been pub-

lished in the United States, it

has been easier to get them im-

ported.

Elect Atkinson

Monterey

College Trustee

Ralph B. Atkinson, a member

of the ACLU board of directors

during the past few years, was

elected to the Monterey Penin-

sula College Board of Trustees

last month. He resides at Bixby

Landing, Coast Route, Monterey.

There were five candidates for

two positions and Atkinson led

all of the candidates with 4088

votes. He will serve a four-year

term,

_ Atkinson is a licensed chemical

engineer. He holds degress from

M.I.T. and Cal Tech. He is the

founder of Atkinson Laboratory,

Inc., and President of Ferroprint

Corporation. He presently has a

Research Laboratory in Mon-

terey.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail priviteges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG ... Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco 5, California, EXbrook 2-4692

Subscription Rates - Two Dollars a Year

z Twenty Cents Per Copy

Ralph B. Atkinson

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Leo Borregard

Rey. Richard Byfield

Richard DeLancie

~ Rabbi Alvin I. Fine

Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross

Atbert Haas, Jr.

Howard A. Jewel

Rey. F. Danfoerd Lion

Prof. Seaton W. Manning

John R. May

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph S$. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown :

Mrs. Paul Couture -

John J. Eagan

Joseph Eichler

Morse Erskine

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Ernest Hilgard

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mes. Mary Hutchinson

`Richard Johnston

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

: of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Howard A. Friedman

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Helen Salz ,

Rey. Harry B. Scholefield

SECRETARY-TREASURER: John M. Fowle

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

Committee of Sponsors

. tes. Ruth Kingman

Prof. John Henry Merryman

Prof. Charles Muscatine

Pref. Herbert Packer

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mrs. Martin Steiner

Gregory S. Stout

Stephen Thiermann

Richard E. Tuttle

Donald Viai

Richard J. Werthimer

GENERAL COUNSEL

Wayne M. Collins

Reger Kent =

Pref. Theodore Kreps

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

Norman Lezin

Rey. Robert W. Moen

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Prof Hwhert Phillips

Prof. Wilson Record

Dr. Norman Reider:

Prof. Wallace Steqner

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rey. Sumner Walters

Punishment of Alcoholic

Conviction

ppea

On April 2nd Oakland Municipal Court Judge Zook Sut-

ten found Thomas F. Budd guilty of a violation of Penal Code

Section 647(f) which punishes a person who is in a public

place in such a state of intoxication as to be unable to take.

eare of himself or others. At Budd's trial, where he was rep-

resented by ACLU attorneys,

Oakland policeman Roy Harri-

man testified that he arrested

Budd after observing him stag-

gering down the street. Budd

testified that he had consumed a

considerable amount of beer on

the evening in question, but that

he had no memory of the actual

arrest, or any other incident

after a certain point in his drink-

ing had been reached, until he

woke up in the drunk tank. It

was also established at the trial

that Budd has a record of 53 ar-

rests most of which are for being

drunk in public.

Expert Testimony

Serving as volunteers for the

ACLU in the case were two ex-

perienced physicians who are ex-

-perts on the disease of alcohol-

ism, Dr. Bernard Diamond and

Dr. David Rubsamen. Diamond

testified that he had given Budd

a complete physical and mental

examination and had come to

the conclusion that Budd is a

chronic alcoholic. Dr. Diamond

said that Budd is not only a

ehronic alcoholic but that he is a

compulsive alcoholic so _ that,

when certain mental tensions are

present, he has an uncontrollable

compulsion to drink.

Diamond went on to say that

Budd can function almost nor-

mally between his alcoholic

binges and that is why he is able

to hold down a job. However, in

Dr. Diamond's opinion, during a

period of stress Budd was not

responsible for even taking the

first drink of alcoholic beverage,

since this was a symptom of his

ACLU NEWS

MAY, 1965

Pade 2

illness rather than a voluntary

act.

Dr. Rubsamen's Testimony

Dr. Rubsamen testified out of

a long experience in dealing with

the problem of alcoholism, since

he is a former director of the

San Francisco Adult Guidance

Center. Rubsamen said that a

sober alcoholic is still a sick man

and that jail is not an appropri-

ate treatment for an alcoholic.

Jail is "antitherapeutic" and

serves to strengthen the alco-

holic's self-image as a worthless

person, and thus add to the prob-

lems which make a person an

alcoholic. Dr. Rubsamen _ con-

cluded that alcoholism is a cur-

able disease, but that it requires

much patience and a good thera-

peutic relationship to effect a

cure.

Law Inapplicable

Defense counsel then argued

that the penal code section was

not meant to apply to an alco-

holic, and if it was, it resulted in

eruel and unusual punishment in

violation of the Eighth Amend-

ment te the United States Con-

stitution, since what was being

punished was a symptom of an

illness and not a voluntary act.

Judge Sutton denied defense mo- .

tions and found Budd guilty.

The case will now be appealed

to the Appellate Department of

the Alameda County Superior

Court. The case may go on to

higher appellate courts and it is

hoped that the courts will rule

that it is unconstitutional to pun-

ish a person for doing nothing

more than exhibiting the symp-

toms of his illness in public.

Prof. James R. -

Caldwell Dies

Prof. James R. Caldwell, U. C.

English professor and a_ he-

loved and valued member of

the board of directors of the

ACLUNC died last month of a

' heart ailment at the age of 65.

He had served on the boars

since 1946 and was also a mem-

ber of the ACLU's National

Committee since early 1951.

(See Howard Friedman's tribute

te Jim Caldwell elsewhere in

this issue of the `"News.'")

e

Livermore Now

Se

Permits Some

we. pege e :

Political Signs

The Livermore City Council

eapitulated last month aon d

amended its zoning ordinance

forbidding the posting of politi-

cal signs in residential areas. The

amendments allow one sign to be

displayed for no longer than 30

days at any house and limits the

size of such sign to no more

than four square feet. :

Whether or not the amend-

ments are reasonable is open to

question. Four square feet does

not allow a sign that will attract

much attention.

Last summer Mrs. C. Ann

Burton, a physicist at the U. C.

Radiation Laboratory urged the

City Council to change the law

but she was turned down.

Thereupon she placed a bumper

strip size Goldwater sign on her

front lawn and when, at the re-

quest of the Livermore Planning

Director, she failed to remove

the sign she was threatened

with prosecution.

The ACLU agreed to repre-

sent Mrs. Burton if she were ar-

rested but the District Attorney

apparently decided that there

was no substantial basis for

prosecution. Mrs. Burton's

eourageous fight. for political

freedom is to be commended.

National ACLU |

Opposes Capital

Punishment

Last month, the national

board of the ACLU adopted the

following brief position with re-

spect to capital punishment:

"The American Civil Liberties

Union is opposed to capital pun-

ishment and will both assert

this position .in appropriate

court cases and attempt to se-

cure legislative repeal of laws

authorizing the death penalty."

It reverses a longstanding AC-

LU position that capital punish-

ment does not per se raise a

civil liberties issue.

The national board's new po-

licy is at variance with that of

the ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia. Recently, a board commit-

tee reconsidered the matter

but reached t he same con-

clusion. One member took the

position, however, that since

"the death penalty bears so

heavily on other constitutional

questions, we should support

legislation leading to its aboli-

tion." Consideration of the com-

mittee's report by the board was

recently laid on the table. (c)

ACLU Meeting

In San Mateo

On May 7 |

_ As part of the 1965 member-

ship drive, ACLU members and

their friends in Burlingame, Hills-

borough, Millbrae and San Mateo

are cordially invited to a coffee

and brandy hour, Friday, May 7,

starting at 8 p.m. at the home

of Dr. and Mrs. Alec Skolnick,

345 Parrott Drive, San Mateo.

Ernest Besig, Executive Direc-

tor of the ACLU of Northern

California will speak on "The

State ef the American Civil Lib-

erties Union.

Friedman's Tribute to |

Prof. James R. Caldwell

Following is the statement made by Howard A. Fried-

man, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the American

Civil Liberties Union of Northern California at the memorial

service for Prof. James R. Caldwell, held at the Faculty

Club, University of California, Berkeley, on April 9, 1965: -

I am more touched and

moved by the honor of being

here than I am rational and re-

alistic in the belief that during

the next few minutes I can do

justice to a summary of Jim

Caldwell's contribution to civil

liberties, or effectively convey

the magnificent spirit he

brought to us.

At best, from the 20 years he

had served as a Director of the

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California and the

15. years he had served as a

member of the National Com-

mittee, only a glimpse of this:

gentle rebel, as we knew him,

is possible.

Gentle Rebel

And a gentle rebel he was,

making his quiet but firm voice

_ echo in the quest for civil liber-

ties with his special accent on

academic freedom and the free-

doms of individual expression

and thought and assembly.

Even as far back as 1940, to-

gether with his colleagues, Prof.

George Stewart, Prof. Alexan-

der Kidd, and Mrs. Kathleen

Tolman, among others, he was

instrumental in the formation of

a Berkeley unit of the ACLU; a

unit formed in the fire of a

School Board issue involving

the use of Berkeley schools as

a meeting place for contro-

versial groups.

Family Tradition

And he came to the ACLU

carrying with him a family tra-

dition steeped in the search for

truth and freedom. Col. Charles

Erskine Scott Wood was a

founder of this branch of the

ACLU, Sarah Bard Field con-

tinues as an honorary member

of our Board, and Kay Caldwell

as recent as last fall, became in-

volved in a civil liberties conflict

involving art and sculpture.

And with his advent to the

Board in 1946 and the years to

follow, he guided and enlight-

ened us with the bright clarity

of his own thought, seasoned

with an ever present wit and

humor, courage and intellect. As

his devotion and support of our

cause became apparent to us,

equally so did his. strong per-

sonal affection and devotion for

this University and his belief in

the fundamental tenets of aca-

demic freedom. In this area, he

became our conscience and

forced us to examine carefully

and constantly each issue and

even to a point of restraint; on

our sometimes impatient and vo-

cal board members, from inter-

vening in campus issues before

the remedies of faculty and self-

government had been ex-

hausted.

Total Man

It is here from this vantage

point where we could see the

measure of this man. Jim Cald-

well knew what it meant to be

a.total man; a scholar, a teacher,

a poet with a deep love and a

profound loyalty to the Univer-

sity, to the students, to his col-

leagues, and to his friends. He

had a profound capacity to love

and a profound capacity for

loyalty.

And if he had stopped right

here, he would still have been

admired and respected and been

none the less virtuous.

But he also had a profound

belief in the freedom of the hu-

man spirit and the freedom of

the human mind. And once

again, had he stopped right here

and pursued these beliefs as he

did within the confines of the

University, he would not have

been the less virtuous nor the

less admired.

Yet instead, this gentle man

with great desire and great prin-

ciple entered the arena of civil

liberties and took his place on

the Board alengside men who

could perhaps make decisions

much' more easily than Jim

Caldwell, particularly on certain

issues, since their decisions

were not afflicted with the deep-

rooted love and loyalty and re-

lationships he had from within

the academic structure. It would

have been easier for this gentle

rebel not to ask for the conflicts

he encountered; conflicts in his

own backyard and, at times, in-

volving those he eared for and

those traditions he cherished. It

would have been easier for him

to have remained aloof.

True Civil Libertarian

And so he joined us in ceun-

cil and in debate, and at times

he chose to walk or stumble or

halt rather than run, if in run-

ning he would hurt someone or

some place he loved. Yet

through all the years he re-

mained a true civil libertarian,

loyal to his concepts and his

friends and preserved his Uni-

versity and his beliefs to the

highest degree and with the

strongest effort he could mus-

ter.

And in his lifelong attempt to

achieve this, he taught us bal-

ance; a balance articulated in

his quiet, firm and_ sensitive

manner; a balance of judgment

and action tempered with com-

passion and restraint. We trust

that this balance will remain as

our heritage from him.

In the rather brief nine

years that we worked together,

I eannot recall Jim Caldwell

ever abstaining from a vote or

backing away from a controv-

ersy. Upon me he conferred

maturity, patience and strength.

Alec and Jim

In fact, I cannot disassociate

through these years, the recol-

lection of Jim Caldwell and

Alee Meiklejohn. Each had af-

fection and great love for the

other. Each in his own way

earried forth the high principles

in their respective search for

truth. They came to the meet-

ings together. Invariably they

sat next to each other and in-

variably, they left together. We

miss Alec-our militant rebel-

and we now have another great

void without Jim, our gentle

rebel.

Bendich Speaks

At Mt. Diablo

Chapter Mtg.

"Changing Concepts of Free-

dom in the Sixties," will be the

theme of the talk at the Annual

Meeting of the Mt. Diablo Chap-

ter on Sunday, May 9. The guest

speaker, Mr. Albert Bendich, will

discuss new and evolving con-

cepts in civil liberties issues. Mr.

Bendich, former staff counsel fer

Northern California Branch, cur-

rently is on the faculty of the

University of California and

maintains a practice in Berkeley.

The meeting will be chaired by

Chuck `Weidner, Vice-Chairman

of the Chapter. Chapter members

will cast ballots for a new Board

of Directors, and a summary of

Chapter activities this year will

be presented by Bob Suczek,

Chairman of the Chapter.

The meeting will be held at

7:30 p.m., Sunday, May 9th, in

the Diablo Room, Diablo Valley

College, Golf Club Rd., Concord.

All members are urged to. come

and to bring their friends. Coffee

will be served.

It was recently disclosed that

oil interests and PG E are

among the financial supporters of

California State Senators, who,

under the guidance of Whitaker

Baxter, are leading a national

campaign for adoption of the

Dirksen Amendment to the Unit-

ed States Constitution. The fol-

lewing analysis of the Dirksen

Amendment was made by

Charles S. Rhyne of the Wash-

. ington, D.C. bar and Past Presi-

dent of the American Bar Asso-

ciation before the Legislative

Conference of the American

Nurses' Association in Washing-

ten, D.C. on March 19, 1965:

I wish to discuss specifically

Senator Dirksen's proposed `"Un-

equal Vote" constitutional amend-

ment which would permit (under

the appealing disguise of major-

ity vote) the destruction of the

one-man, one-vote principle. I

realize that many proposals have

been introduced in this session of

Cengress which are aimed at pre-

venting in one way or another

the equal vote principle of the

reapportionment decisions. How-

ever, since most of the publicity

has been directed to Senator

Dirksen's Amendment, I will con-

fine my remarks chiefly to his

proposal. Senator Dirksen's pro-

posed amendment reads as fol-

lows:

"The right and power to de-

termine the composition of the

legislature of a State and the

apportionment of the member-

ship thereof shall remain in

the people of that State. Noth-

ing in this Constitution shall

prohibit the people from ap-

portioning one house of a bi-

cameral legislature upon the

basis of factors other than pop- -

ulation, or from giving reason-

able weight to factors other

than population in apportion-

ing a unicameral igeslature, if,

in either case, such apportion-

ment has been submitted to a

vote of .the people in accord-

ance with law and with the

provisions of this Constitution

and has been approved by a

majority of those voting on

that issue." (S. J. Res. 2, 89th

Cong., Ist Sess. (1965))

The Dirksen Amendment

Subverts The American Principle

Of Equality

By condoning unequal voting

rights for state legislatures, the

passage of the Dirksen amend-

ment would be the first blow in

the history of our Nation chip-

ping away the rock of constitu-

tionally - protected rights and

guarantees. The right to an equal

vote is the bedrock of our democ-

racy. Upon it rests all other

rights. And implicit in the. Su-

preme Court's reapportionment

' decisions, against which the Dirk-

sen amendment is aimed, is the

fundamental precept of judicial

protection of this personal consti-

tutional right te an equal vote.

Under the Dirksen amendment

that judicial protection is gone

ferever.

The great American ideal is

characterized by the principle of

equality of man.

The Declaration of Independ-

ence boldly proclaims: "all men

are created equal."

Thomas Jefferson, the author

of this great document, stated:

"For let it be agreed that a gov-

ernment is republican in propor-

tion as every member composing

it has his equal voice in the di-

rection of its concerns."

Addressing himself to the prin-

eiples of the Declaration of Inde-

pendence, Abraham Lincoln

stated that: "Equality ... is basic

to a consideration of political and

ecenomic rights."

In keeping with America's con-

eept of human equality, the Four-

teenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution forbids a state

to deny any person the "equal

protection of the laws."

Today especially, equality of

voting rights vitally concerns all

citizens of the United States. As

stated by President Johnson:

"It is wrong to deny Ameri-

cans the right to vote. It is

wrong to deny any person full

equality because of the color

of his skin. The promise. of

America is a simple promise:

Every person shall share in the

blessings of this land, and they

shall share on the basis of

their merits as a person. They

shall not be judged by their

color or by their beliefs, or by

their religion, or by where

they were born, or the neigh-

borhood in which they live."

That this towering ideal of

equality is non-partisan could be

proved by quotes from many Re-

publicans. I choose to quote the

greatest leader of that party

Richard M. Nixon who Said last

Friday: "The Republican Party

must support both legislative and

other programs that will serve

the cause of equal rights for all

American citizens. It must not

compromise its strong position

on civil rights for the purpose of

gaining votes."

Adoption of the Dirksen amend-

ment would be the first constitu-

tional provision in the history of

our Nation empowering the

states to give voters unequal

treatment. An equal vote cannot

now be denied by a state because

of where a voter's home is locat-

ed. Under the Dirksen Amend-

ment it can. An equal vote can-

not now be denied by a state be-

cause of a voter's religion. Under

the Dirksen amendment it can.

An equal vote cannot now be de-

nied by a state because of a vot-

er's occupation. Under the Dirk-

sen amendment it can. An equal

vote cannot now be denied by a

state because of all the other un-

defined, arbitrary factors con-

tained in the words "factors

other than population." Under

the Dirksen amendment it can.

And, regardless of what some

may think, today constitutional

rights are the same in all states.

Under the Dirksen amendment

they can vary from state to state

depending on a majority vote of

the people of each state.

Tyranny Of The Majority

The Dirksen amendment works

its evil in destroying the ""Ameri-

can promise" of equality under

the guise of another American

principle - majority rule. But

up to now a citizen's constitu-

tional rights could not be in-

fringed simply because a major-

ity of the people choose to do so.

The % vote by both houses of

Congress and %4 vote by state

legislatures or conventions

(which are to be chosen by mal-

apportioned legislatures) hardly

connotes wiping out of constitu-

tional rights by a majority vote.

Moreover, our forefathers were

familiar with the power of a

tightly organized minority to out-

vote a majority so they did not

write Senator Dirksen's proposal

into the Constitution of the Unit-

ed States. Constitutional rights

are not "rights" if they depend

on-the outcome of elections. Now

`a highly-organized minority com-

posed of incumbent state legisla-

tors and lobbyists who live off of

them hope te use the Dirksen

amendment to fasten upon the

unorganized majority perpetual

minority control. Go back and

read the Dirksen amendment. It

does not allow a re-vote when the

unorganized majority awakens to

what the organized minority has

done to it. Small wonder the rush

act is on. It is hoped that the

awakening comes late or never

so that the current legislatures

controlled by the minority can

vote in the Dirksen amendment,

thus assuring themselves a veto

control over all state legislative

action forever. The stakes are

high. They always are when such

a "fast deal" is attempted.

A full vote should not be de-

pendent upon where a man lives.

History has repeatedly warned of

the "tyranny of the majority."

Let us not close our eyes to his-

tory's teachings. The Dirksen

amendment contains the seeds of

this "tyranny of the majority" by

allowing a.majority of the voters

of a state to debase, dilute and ef-

fectively destroy the most sacred

right of equal franchise.

The Genesis Of Malapportioned

State Legislatures

The precise concept of one

house based on population and

the second house based on ge-

ography or other arbitrary fac-

tors was not found in any of the

original state constitutions. The

original constitutions of 36 states

provided that representation in

both houses would be based com-

pletely or predominantly on pop-

-ulation. Congress provided in the

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

that: `The inhabitants of the said

territory shall always be entitled.

to the benefits . . . of a propor-

tionate representation of the peo-

ple in the Legislature."

When deviations from the equal-

population principle came along

they were clearly motivated by

considerations of selfish advan-

tage to particular interest groups.

With the shift and concentration

of population in the urban areas,

the politicians representing the

people in sparsely populated

areas did not want to lose their

offices or the power and other

benefits that go with them. This

is the genesis of our malappor-

tioned state legislatures. It is a

false idea to assert that it is the

tradition of America to have one

house of a state legislature mal-

apportioned.. America's tradition

is equality. Ours is a government

"of, by and for the people." We

should never define equality to

mean inequality.

By Not Providing For Judi-

cial Review the Dirksen

Amendment Allows The Mal-

apportionment Of Both Heuses

Of A State Legislature; Sanc-

tions Discrimination Based On -

Race, Religion, Sex or Other

Arbitrary Criteria In Deter-

mining The Composition Of

State Legislatures; And Per-

mits The Freezing Of the Sta-

tus Quo.

The very first sentence of the

Dirksen amendment provides

that "The right and power to de-

termine the composition of the

legislature of a State and the ap-_

portionment of the membership

thereof shall remain in the peo-

ple of that State." This sentence

may be construed to allow the

malapportionment of both houses

of a state legislature, and federal

and state courts weuld be power-

less to interfere. While there

may be some question as to

whether judicial review is denied

under the first sentence of the

Dirksen amendment, under the

second sentence no judicial re-

lief is available once a particular

apportionment scheme has re-

ceived the approval of a majority

of the people of a State.

Thus, absent judicial review,

states would be at liberty to sanc-

tion discrimination based on race,

religion, sex or other arbitrary

criteria in determining the com-

position of their legislatures.

Moreover, state legislative appor-

tionment would undoubtedly re-

vert to the pre-Baker v. Carr era

where less than 1/10 to 1/3 of

the rural voters controlled one,

or in many instances, both houses

of the legislature. You will recall

that pre-Baker v. Carr was an era

in which 27 states had not been

reapportioned in 25 years; 8

states had not been reapportioned

in 50 years - even though their

state constitutions required de-

cennial reapportionment. Indeed,

under the Dirksen amendment,

state legislators could have a

"field day' knowing that they

could apportion and determine

the composition of their legisla-

tures without fear of judicial re-

view.

Once a majority of the people

in a state had approved an appor-

tionment scheme under the Dirk-

sen amendment, the apportion-

ment may never be changed.

Senator Dirksen's amendment

does not provide for change ever.

Regardless of how inefficient the

malapportiened legislature might

function or how long a majority

might be frustrated, the majority

would be powerless to alter the.

existing apportionment set-up.

Thus, by denying judicial review,

by not providing for the subse-

quent submission of an approved

apportionment plan to the peo-

ple, the Dirksen amendment per-

mits a perpetual freezing of the

status quo. That is why I say the

stakes are high - very high -

for the current political bosses

of state legislatures and their lob-

byist friends.

`Majority Voter Approval Of A

Malapportionment Plan Is

Misleading

The Dirksen amendment ex-

pressly provides for the malap-

_portionment of one house of a

state legislature so long as a ma-

jority of those voting express

their approval of the plan. I have

already stated that an American's

basic right to an equal vote is not

now and never should be depend-

ent upon elections. However,

voter approval of a reapportion-

ment plan does not necessarily

mean that the majority approves

apportionment based on non-pop-

ulation factors. To the centrary,

the "approval" may indicate only

that the plan offered is an im-

provement over the existing man-

ner of apportionment. In other

words, the Dirksen amendment

does not require that the people

of a state be given a fair choice

of voting upon a system of repre-

sentation based upon population

or upon some other basis of rep-

resentation. It is only common

sense that the voters who are be-

ing discriminated against would

approve any proposal which

would even minutely increase

their voting rights.

How the majority may react is

proved by the recent vote of the

majority in Colorado for a mal-

apportioned legislature when oth-

er advantages for that majority

were provided in the same refer-

endum. The U. S. Supreme Court

properly ruled that a majority

vote in one state cannot now

amend the Constitution of the

United States. Senator Dirksen's

amendment would change that.

The Dirksen Amendment Fails

To Provide Standards For The

Malapportioned House

Under the Dirksen amendment

`it is provided that: "Nothing in

this Constitution shall prohibit

the people from apportioning one

house of a bicameral legislature

upon the basis of factors other

than population."

It is readily apparent from this

provision that standards are total-

ly lacking in governing the ap-

portionment of the malappor-

tioned house of a state legisla-

ture. Thus, the Dirksen amend-

ment allows for legislative dis-

tricting based on racial or other

factors. And the courts would be

powerless to interfere.

The Dirksen Amendment Is Not

Justified By The So-Called

Federal Analegy

Some supporters of the Dirk-

sen Amendment seek to justify

it on the ground that the appor-

tionment of one house of a state

legislature on a non-population

basis is analogous to the manner

of representation provided by the

Constitution for the Congress. Of

course, this "justification" has al-

ways been the rural politician's

first line of defense in opposing

any change in the status que. The

fact is, however, that the so-called

"federal analogy" is misleading

and false. | :

The underlying rationale upon

which representation in the Unit-

ed States Congress is based is

that the United States is a fed-

eration of independent sovereign-

ties. The presently existing man-

ner of representation provided

for under the Federal principle

was demanded by certain of these

independent sovereignties before

they would agree to relinquish a

portion of their sovereignty to

establish a central government. .

On the other hand, a state is

net truly a federation of coun-

ties and political subdivisions im

the sense that the latter preceded

the former. To the contrary, the

state is the creator and the local

governmental units are the cre-

ated. Moreover, representaticei in

some state legislatures is based

upon an artificial division of the

state into senate er house dis-

tricts. Certainly these districts

have no independent significance

and are not, by any stretch of the

imagination, sovereign or quasi-

sovereign entities. To speak of

federalism within a state is to

reduce a great principle te an

absurdity. :

The equality required by the

Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution is

equality of people - not geogra-

phy. Reliance on a so-called "fed-

eral analogy" is simply an after-

_the-fact rationalization offered in

defense of the indefensible,

grossly malapportioned state leg-

islatures.

Conclusion

The Dirksen amendment to

provide voter inequality and mi-

nority control of state legisla-

tures should not be adopted. It

denies the most basic right of

citizenship - the right of every

American to a full or equal vote.

The next chapter in the strug-

gle for voting rights in our Na-

tion, after adoption of President

Johnson's Voting Rights Bill,

should not be such a backward

step.

Equality of man is the great

ideal upon which our Nation was

founded. It is also the towering

ideal on which our leadership of

the free world depends. :

We must not allow the issue

here to be so beclouded by poli-

ticians and politics as to mislead

the unorganized majority inte en-

slaving themselves to well organs.

ized self-interest minority control

forever. We deplore such tightly

organized minority control in-

other nations. Yet it could hap-

pen in our Nation for many who

say they are for President John-

son's Voting Rights Bill say they

are also for the Dirksen amend- ..,,

ment. In fact, they may be linked __

as a "package" by supporters of

the Dirksen amendment. But, in

reality, the two are totally at war

in fact and principle. In all good

conseience I urge that in the

words of President Johnson "It

is wrong to deny any person full

equality because of the color of

his skin" and "It is wrong to

deny any American full equality

for any reason." Denial of equal-

ity denies all that America stands

for. Again quoting President

Johnson: _

"Every American citizen

must have an equal right to

vote. There is no reason which

can excuse the denial of that

right. There is no duty which

weighs more heavily on us

than the duty we have to en-

sure that right."

- The Dirksen amendment is.

contrary to what President John-

son here states. Every American

should have not only an "equal

right to vote" but also an equal

vote.

I urge you to do all you can to

insure the defeat of the Dirksen

amendment.

Livermore

Meeting

May 6th "

ACLU members, friends and

the public in San Leandre, Hay-

ward, Pleasanton and Livermore

are invited to a meeting in the

Choral Room of Livermore High

School (600 Maple Street, Liver-

more), on Thursday, May 6 at

8 p.m.

Ernest Besig, Executive Direc-

tor of ACLUNC will discuss cur-

rent activities of the organization.

ACLU NEWS.

MAY, 1965

Page 3

~ remaining.

- California Legislature

The campaign to overturn the United States Supreme

Court's

decision requiring one man, one vote has been

intensified in Washington and in California. In- California

the campaign is spurred by what the Sacramento Bee editor-

ijalized as an "unholy alliance" between state senators and

lobbyists for special interests.

In Washington, D. C., hearings

are still being conducted on the

Dirksen Amendment, the focus

of efforts to overturn the one

man, one vote rulings, by a sub-

committee of the Senate Judici-

ary Committee. An article in The

Reporter of April 22, 1965 states

that the "Senate hearings ae

have had the effect of reinforce-

ing the position of the opponents

of the Supreme Court decision

. . . Senators, representatives,

`and state legislators have testi-

fied for the amendment. Only a

few Senatorial voices in opposi-

tion have been heard at the hear-

ings, and just one big-city mayor,

Richard J. Daley of Chicago,

found time to testify against it."

Opposition to the Dirksen

Amendment and _ similar _ pro-

posals has been largely limited

thus far to the ACLU, the Amer-

ican Jewish Congress and the

AFL-CIO.

State Legislature

The state legislature has begun

to move into high gear with only

six weeks of the regular session

Action has-been

taken on many of the bills which

the Sacramento office of the

ACLU has been following.

The free speech controversy at

the University of California con-

tinues to draw attention. In the

Senate, the Rules Committee

heard extensive debate on two

resolutions (SRs 12 and 13), in-

troduced by Senator Jack

Schrade (R., San Diego), aimed

at pressuring the Regents into.

disciplinary. action against the

students and faculty members

who were involved in the free

speech demonstrations last fall.

The Rules Committee, after op-

position from the University's

lobbyist, Frank Kidner, took the

resolutions "under submission',

a euphemism which generally

means defeat.

-Mulford Bill

In the Assembly, a measure

(AB 1920; Mulford, R., Berke-

ley) designed to give University

and state college authorities

power to expel non-students

from college and University

property was given a rush pas-

sage. The bill, as amended (pre-

sumably at the instance of the

University), would create a new

erime of trespass. It would em-

power designated University and

state college authorities to eject

(generally) a non-student or non-

faculty member if "it reasonably

appears to [such authorities]...

that such person is committing

any act likely to interfere with

the peaceful conduct of the ac-

tivities" of a campus. The treat-

ment given AB 1920 is illustra-

tive of the overwhelming opposi-

tion of the public to the Univer-

sity demonstrations. After an

agreement between the Speaker

"pf the Assembly and Mr. Mul-

ford, the Assembly waived the

time limits on hearing the meas-

ure, attached an emergency

clause allowing the bill to take

immediate effect on signing by

the Governor) and passed it by a

yote of 62-14. Efforts to sub-

stitute clearer provisions were

overwhelmingly rejected. The

bill is now pending before the

Senate Judiciary Committee and

ACLU NEWS

MAY, 1965

Page 4

~eontribution to the

is expected to pass easily the

remaining legislative hurdles.

University Demonstrations

Another effort to deal with the

University demonstrations in the

Assembly has not fared as well.

A measure (AB 570; Lanterman,

R., La Canada), which would re-

quire the State Scholarship Com-

mission to forfeit the scholar-

ship (for a year) of any award

winner `who violates any [Uni-

versity or state college} ... rule

during the course of a demon-

stration . .. while on the cam-

pus .. .", has been delayed by

the Assembly Education Com-

mittee for clarifying amend-

ments.

Conformity Oaths

A more depressing indicator

of the repressive civil liberties

climate in the legislature was

the Assembly treatment of a bill

which would require an addi-

tional oath of non-disloyalty of

nominees for political office. AB

467 (Allen; D., Los Angeles)

would require the taking of the

Levering oath by any nominee

for elective office. The new oath

would be in addition to another

oath required of nominees and

a third required of successful

candidates for office. The Allen

pill passed the Assembly by a

vote of 46 to 21. It has been sent

to the Senate Elections Commit-

tee.

A. more positive note was

struck when the author (Danne-

meyer, D., Orange County) of a-

loyalty oath for lobbyists (AB

529) declined to pursue the

-measure before. the Assembly

Rules Committee.

Obscenity Bills

The Assembly Criminal Proce-

dure Committee defeated on a

tie vote (5-5) an obscenity bill

(AB 1313; Barnes, R., San Diego)

which would have struck (gen-

erally) the protections for art

and literature from the existing

California obscenity law. A series

of other repressive obscenity

bills concerning the standards

for matter distributed to minors

and the procedures for obscenity

trials are set for hearing before

the same committee on April

27th. Action on these measures

will be reported in a future

issue.

Public Employees

The legislature made a modest

political

rights of public employees in the

passage of AB 33 (Danielson: D.,

Los Angeles) which would allow

a public employee to _ solicit

funds for the passage or defeat

of a ballot measure affecting

conditions of work. But the legis-

lature detracted from the protec-

tions given participants in the

election process by the pasage of

AB 168 which would make it a

crime to circulate anonymous

campaign literature which is

"designed to .. . defeat any

candidate for . .. public office

by reflecting upon his . . . polit-

ical action . -' Both of the

above measures were signed by

the Governor.

Implied Consent

A Senate Committee for the

first time has reported out a bill

(SB 42; Collier, D., Yreka) re-

quiring an alleged drunk driver

to take a chemical test for in-

toxication or forfeit his driver's

Favorable

Decisions in 3

Security Cases

Continued from Page 1-

ed, a suit was filed in the U.S.

District Court seeking declara-

tory and injunctive relief and

contending that the man was

legally entitled to a discharge

that reflects the character of his

service. The Army Discharge Re-

view Board last month decided

it would reconsider the matter -

and granted an Honorable Dis-

`charge.

Third Case

The third and final case in-

volved a young engineer who

needed a security clearance at

his private employment because

he worked in an area where

others were handling security in-

formation. The Government rec-

ommended against granting a se-

curity clearance because five

years ago he had been hospital-

ized for three months because of

mental illness. A young Air

Force psychiatrist who examined

the employee took the position

that any person who has had

schizophrenia doesn't fully recov-

er; that while there was no

present lack of judgment, the

employee's illness could be ex-

pected to have a continuing ef-

fect and it would cause a signifi-

eant defect in his judgment and

reliability.

Testimony Excluded

During the course of cross-ex-

amination by Ernest Besig, it

was disclosed that in forming

his opinion the psychiatrist had

access to a secret file which

could not be made available to

the employee's counsel. As a re-

sult, his testimony was excluded

and the employee was re-exam-

ined, this time by a Navy doctor,

a man with much wider experi-

ence than the first expert. The

latter expressed the opinion that

the employee "does not suffer

from an illness that would affect

his judgment and reliability. The

prediction of the possibility of

a recurrence of an acute psy-

chosis is risky, but there is bet-

ter than a 50% chance that he

will be able to maintain his

present state of excellent remis-

sion for many years."

Old Fashioned Idea

Two psychiatrists for the

young man expressed the opin-

ion that he was not a security

risk. "I feel,'' said one outstand-

ing psychiatrist, "that the De-

partment of Defense is laboring

under a somewhat old fashioned

idea that once the diagnosis of

`schizophrenia' is made, the per-

son is `fixed' for life. As you are

undoubtedly aware . . . schizo-

phrenia is a kind of wastebasket

diagnosis that rarely carries the

ominous implications that it did

in the old days of the asylums.

The young psychiatrist who ex-

amined Mr. ............ at Travis was

undoubtedly influenced by the

confidential material he had on

hand and, since he was just leav-

ing the service, his involvement

in thoroughly understanding the

case may have been minimal."

He concluded that the em-

ployee's illness "was of a type

that is not uncommon in college

students and is born of a combi-

nation of extreme stress, little

sleep and poor nutrition. His last

several years of excellent per-

formance should be enough evi-

dence that he has recovered from

this temporary mental disorder.

license for a period of six

months.

Many other bills still await leg-

~islative action. In the few re-

maining weeks the legislature

must. consider bills requiring

counsel for indigents at both the |

trial and appellate levels, liber-

alizing the requirements of bail,

notifying an arrested person of

his rights, and a number of bills

concerning civil rights. These

measures and others will be the

subject of future issues. -Cole-

man A, Blease.

-Family Membership .

ACLU Policy Statement

Opposing `Shared Ti:

1e

"Shared time" encompasses a number of different pldns,

some of which may present no substantial constitutional

problem. This policy statement applies to those plans which

permit pupils in sectarian schools to enroll as part-time

pupils in public schools and to satisfy the compulsory

education requirements of their

state through a combination of

public and religious school cur-~

ricuia.

The ACLU believes that such

"shared time' programs present

grave constitutional and_ civil

liberty problems under the Es-

tablishment Clause because of

the substantial benefit that such

programs confer upon sectarian

schools and because of the joint

involvement by secular and

church authorities in decision-

making on matters affecting re-

ligion.

1. "Shared time" programs in-

volve "aid to religion." Al-

though the Supreme Court in

Everson v. Board of Education

narrowly upheld the payment of

funds directly to parents for

transportation costs of parochial

school children, the Justices

unanimously subscribed to the

following principles, which have

frequently been reiterated:

Neither a state nor the fed-

eral government can .. . pass

laws which aid one religion,

aid all religions, or prefer one

_.religion over another . .. No

tax in any amount, large or

small, can be levied to support

any religious activities or in-

stitutions, whatever they may

be called, or whatever form

._they may adopt to teach or

practice religion.

_ "Shared time" involves aid to

religion and the imposition of a

tax that was expressly con-

demned in the Everson case.

Tax money is no longer being

used incidentally for the child's

protection and health, but is in-

stead being utilized to support

academic programs for children

receiving their basic education

in church schools.

2. "Shared time" programs

involve joint participation of

public and private authorities in

important decisions affecting

education and religion. The Es-

tablishment Clause was drafted

by men of the Eighteenth Cen-

tury who had vivid recollections -

of bitter religious conflicts Its

chief purpose was to enable the

United States to avoid friction

and strife that inevitably accom-

pany the fusion of government

and religion.

"Shared time" proposals in-

volve a substantial reordering of

public and sectarian schools in

which both public and religious

authorities must participate.

This joint decision-making will

touch on the most sensitive

matters-subjects to be taught,

hours to be devoted to particu-

lar courses, textbooks, other

teaching materials, and even

"appropriate" instructors for

each course. It is this transfer-

ance of religious interests and

-disputes to the public arena

that James Madison, the prin-

cipal architect of the Bill of

Rights, warned against in his

historic Remonstrance (para-

graphs 8 and 11). He said:

Public money devoted to pay-

ment of religious costs, educa-

tional or other, brings the

quest for more. It brings too,

the struggle of sect against sect

for the larger share or for any.

Here one by numbers alone

will benefit most, there an-

other. That is precisely the

history of societies which have

had an established religion and

dissident groups.

The foregoing statement was

adopted by the ACLU's national

Board of Directors by a majority

vote on April 4, 1965. :

Clem Miller

Memorial Lib.

Dedication

The Marin Chapter of the AC-

LUNC last month appealed for

contributions of books,

and pamphlets dealing with civil

liberties and civil rights. They

will become part of the new

Clem Miller Memorial Library

collection at the Marin County

Civic Center.

The unique collection will be

dedicated and a bronze plaque

unveiled in honor of the former

First District Congressman on

May 1, at 3 p.m., in the county

library room at the new civic

center in San Rafael in a meef-

ing sponsored by the Chapter.

Speakers at the dedication pro-

gram will include Marin Su-

perior Court Judge Richard M.

Sims, Jr., and Board of Super-

visors President Peter Behr.

Music will be provided by the

Marin Quartet, a string ensem-

ble. Members of the late Con-

gressman's family will attend

the dedication. The public is in-

vited.

Miller was killed in a plane

crash in October, 1962. He was

a founder of the Marin Chapter

and also a co-author of the Li-

brary Services Act.

Sali Lieberman of Mill Valley,

chairman of the planning com-

mittee, said more than $1000 has

already been raised for buying

basic books in the civil liberties

field. Over one hundred books

have already been assembled.

They will carry bookplates de-

signed by Emmy Lou Randall,

Mendocino artist.

Contributions | should be sent ~

to Mrs. Virginia Keating, Li-

brarian, Marin Civic Center. San

Rafael, ear-marked for the

Clem Miller Memorial Library.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

JOIN TODAY

oe 151

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership

eocvuveeeeoevoeereoevee 2 eee ee 6 6 and @ @

.$100

Sustaining Membership. ..0.. 4%5.- 53. ee oe 0

Business and Professional Membership ............5. 29

Be ee es Pee ee

Associate Membership a

Annual Membership ..

Student Membership

eeeereo eee eee ew eee eH (c) 8 06 O O 7

ec eC eee ec oe eee er eeoeoe eee ee eee e 2

ACLU News Subscription ee PU

NAME.

ADDRESS.

TELEPHONE NUMBER.....

SCO CHHSHCHSHOHHOHSHESHSCHEHRHSOHKEHHHOHSTHHLHOTHHEHHHHHHHTHHHHHOOSS

CCCHOCHOSCHOHHSHAOSSHEHHOHHSHSHEHSSHHHSCHS SHS HHHH CHEST HHHHOH HEHE O*

. AMT. ENCLOSED.

eoeeereeee

503 Market Street

- San Francisco, 94105

papers -